Category: Uncategorized
-
An Internal Critique of Physicalism: Freedom and Responsibility
Peter Smith and O.R. Jones begin their discussion of causality and freedom by restating three points to provide a context for their discussion.
…First, it is a deeply entrenched presumption of science that all physical changes are to be explained entirely in terms of physical causes… (252)
Second, we humans belong to the physical world, at least in the sense that there is no more to our make-up than ordinary organic stuff… (252)
Third, we have claimed it as a virtue of our broadly functionalist account of the mind that it allows us to speak of mental states while still
-
Bravo Nocterro
Kudos to Nocterro (who sometimes comments here) for writing a pretty clear explanation of what presuppositionalists have been saying for some time now.
…Showing that the Bible is correct in its historical claims does not show it is correct in its theological claims…
Imagine for the sake of argument that someone showed that Jesus did indeed resurrect…All it would show is that a man resurrected, not that Yahweh exists and that such a being was the cause of such an event. It could have been that it was the doing of some other sort of god, or even something else
-
A Brief Word On The Transcendental Argument For The Existence Of God
Immanuel Kant is known for having coined a term and utilized an argument which is now referred to as transcendental, though it may be traced back even further, having been used in some sense by Aristotle (as one example). Cornelius Van Til, writing from the Continental Tradition in Philosophy, wrote extensively concerning a transcendental argument which is utilized to prove Christianity. Greg L. Bahnsen, a student of Van Til, is best known for having brought the argument, or at least something very much like the argument, into the realm of public debate and for having attempted to clarify it …
-
Lost In A Sea Of Subjectivism
Mitch LeBlanc has posted the draft for his journal submission on The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. In the Abstract for the article, he writes, “I present a couple of objections formulated by Sean Choi and Michael Martin and develop three of my own”. It has been pointed out already that whatever Mitch is arguing against, it is not Bahnsen’s TAG. Given that even I, though not very well read on TAG, had encountered the objections from Choi and Martin no later than 2007 and given the recent interaction found here and here with some of the …
-
No Place To Stand
People have repeatedly called my attention to three posts by Mitch LeBlanc at www.urbanphilosophy.net wherein he makes a “case against presuppositionalism”. There are reasons I have put off writing anything about them other than not having a great deal of time. The arguments contained in the posts are in fact not what they claim to be (arguments against presuppositionalism), but are arguments against the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. The arguments presented do not originate with Mitch at all, a fact he readily admits, but are arguments familiar to many presuppositionalists that have been rehashed. Some of the …
-
An Example of Begging the Question
It is often helpful to have included in an apologetic arsenal a basic understanding of fallacies. One popularly used fallacy is called “Begging the Question”. It may be summed up in simple terms as merely assuming the same thing one is attempting to prove. Do not misunderstand, there is nothing wrong with an assumption or attempting to prove an assumption, but there is something wrong with setting forth a mere assumption as though it constitutes an argument; as though the assumption of the very thing someone is attempting to prove is itself the proof! An interesting illustration of this …
-
Faint Inconsistencies and Heightened Sensitivity to the Obvious
One of the difficult things about arguing against a presuppositionalist is that the use of the presuppositional method necessitates an emphasis upon discerning contradictions within a worldview even when those contradictions are implied by a manner of speaking utilized by an individual. Two immediately apparent dangers associated with such an approach are that of finding contradictions where none exist and that of revealing one’s inconsistencies through the habit of speech. The latter may be spoken of in a positive sense and an example given in the case of a naturalist ascribing intentionality to nature. Heightened sensitivity to such error stems …
-
Don’t Be An Ostrich
In The Fixation of Belief Peirce describes four methods for the “fixation of belief”. According to Peirce, the goal of inquiry is to settle one’s opinion. Thus Peirce asks, “why should we not attain the desired end, by taking as answer to a question any we may fancy, and constantly reiterating it to ourselves, dwelling on all which may conduce to that belief, and learning to turn with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it?”[1] This is what Peirce refers to as the “Method of Tenacity”. Now I must wonder whether or not this reminds you of …
-
The Problem of Religion (Part 3): James, Kierkegaard, Buber
This is the last installment for this series. Search the title for the previous parts.
As mentioned in the introduction, William James really does not care a great deal about dogmatic theology or philosophy of religion as it is often presented by people like Descartes, as he is a pragmatist. Dogmatic theology and philosophy of religion are often unsuccessful and impractical. The only exceptions are when religious experience (the kind Freud dislikes as justification for religion) and philosophy are put together to help with the experience.
Of course there are large differences between what Freud is after and what James …
-
Falling Down
A section of the ongoing discussion between Chris the evil Presuppositionlist (inside joke, sorry) and Mitch over at Urban Philosophy caught my attention today. It is a section that discusses the concept of “common ground” between believer and unbeliever by using the analogy of gravity. Here is the entirety of what Mitch stated caught my attention:
…The common ground of reality affect both the believer and the non-believer, and this is a common ground from which dialogue may begin. Knowledge of gravity is not required for the effects of gravity. We do not see babies flying because they do not